Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.28 (2026)
Evidence; view by jury.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
768.28 Evidence; view by jury.
Sec. 28.
The court may order a view by any jury empaneled to try a criminal case, whenever such court shall deem such view necessary.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17321 ;-- CL 1948, 768.28
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 10 of Ch. 165 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 6077; CL 1871, § 7956; How., § 9569; CL 1897, § 11952; and CL 1915, § 15825.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: People v. Unger, 749 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
People v. Unger, 749 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “414(F); see also MCL 768.28 (stating that “[t]he court may order a view by any jury empanelled to try a criminal case, whenever such court shall deem such view necessary”).”
People v. Mallory, 365 N.W.2d 673 (Mich. 1985). “Nevertheless, the error was harmless because there was no reasonable possibility of prejudice from defendants' absence. People v Hughie Lewis, 97 Mich App 359, 365-366 ; 296 NW2d 22 (1980).”
People v. Herndon, 633 N.W.2d 376 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “MCL 768.28 and MCR 6.414(D) both permit a trial court, in its discretion, to allow the jury to visit a place where an event connected with the crime occurred.”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 740 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “[5] The former MCL 768.28(1) did require the trial court to afford the surety an opportunity to appear and be heard before judgment.”
People v. Crown, 254 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “MCLA 768.28; MSA 28.1051. Where, as here, the judge gave cogent reasons for denying the request, an abuse of discretion cannot be said to have occurred.”
People v. Dykes, 195 N.W.2d 14 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “MCLA 768.28; MSA 28.1051. People v Pizzino, 313 Mich 95, 106 (1945).”
People v. Curry, 211 N.W.2d 254 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “Defendant further contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion that the jury view the scene where the view would have enabled the jurors more clearly to comprehend the evidence already received.”
People v. Anderson, 317 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “*648 We find defendant’s second claim of error to be without merit.”
People v. Suiter, 266 N.W.2d 762 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “A trial court has discretion under MCLA 768.28; MSA 28.1051 to allow a jury view, even after *224 deliberations have begun.”
People v. Moore, 276 Mich. App. 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “The former MCL 768.28(1) did require the trial court to afford the surety an opportunity to appear and be heard before judgment.”
People v. Hughie Lewis, 296 N.W.2d 22 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “In fact, the Court has indicated on the record in front of the jury that they would take them back to the cell, so they know they are confined.”
People v. King, 534 N.W.2d 534 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “MCL 768.28; MSA 28.1051; People v Mallory, 421 Mich 229, 245 ; 365 NW2d 673 (1984), appeal after remand 168 Mich App 255 ; 423 NW2d 637 (1988).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.28(1) — 2 cases
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 740 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “[5] The former MCL 768.28(1) did require the trial court to afford the surety an opportunity to appear and be heard before judgment.”
People v. Moore, 276 Mich. App. 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “The former MCL 768.28(1) did require the trial court to afford the surety an opportunity to appear and be heard before judgment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.